Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

tusd binary versus importing ? #115

Closed
gedw99 opened this issue Aug 12, 2023 · 1 comment
Closed

tusd binary versus importing ? #115

gedw99 opened this issue Aug 12, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@gedw99
Copy link

gedw99 commented Aug 12, 2023

https://github.com/tus/tusd/blob/main/docs/usage-package.md

Did you use the binary as a sort of API drift protection ?

@chrisd8088
Copy link
Contributor

This feature was implemented quite a while ago, in PR #52 in 2016, and none of the current Git LFS core team were involved at that time, so we can't speak from personal experience.

However, that PR has a conveniently thorough description, which I think fully explains the implementation choice:

I couldn't create meaningful tests for this without making the project dependent on the tus codebase, which is quite large (recursive dependencies). This is also the reason I chose to implement it by calling the tusd binary (which the user must have installed when opting in), rather than directly referencing the tus code - that would have been more elegant and wouldn't have had to assume knowledge of the tusd storage model, but it would have bloated the vendor directory horribly so I consider this the lesser of the two evils.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants